Judgment S.B. Sinha, J. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 12.7.1985 issued under the signature of Special Officer, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application as also for an appropriate writ for quashing the list of recommendations for appointment of 32 candidates to the post of Forest Range Officers prepared and published by the Special Officer, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar (respondent no. 3) and further for issuance of a writ of or in the nature, of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to prepare a fresh recommendation list for the aforementioned posts in accordance with the directive of the State Government dated 10.7.1979 and to consider the case of the petitioner for being appointed in one of the posts of Forest Range Officer. 2. The basic facts of the case are not much in dispute. In November, 1981, the respondent no. 3 invited applications for appointment of 40 posts of Forest Range Officers under the State of Bihar. The said advertisement was published in the Bihar Gazette dated 4.11.1981, which is contained in Annexure-l to the writ petition. 3. It is admitted that out of the aforementioned 40 posts, 20 seats were meant for general candidates and 20 seats were reserved seats. Out of the aforementioned 20 reserved seats, 7 seats were reserved for scheduled castes, 4 seats were reserved for scheduled tribes, 4 seats were reserved for most backward classes, 4 seats were reserved for backward classes and one seat was reserved' for economically backward class. 4. Pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement, candidates belonging to both reserved category as also the general category filed applications for appointment in the said posts. 5. It is admitted that so far as the candidates, who come within the purview of the reserved category are concerned were required to submit a caste and income certificate by a competent magistrate along with their applications. 6. A competitive examination was held for appointment in the aforementioned posts in May 1982 and the result thereof was published in the year, 1983. The petitioner having been declared selected in the written test, was called for physical test and ultimately was also called for interview which was held on 1.12.1983. 7. 6. A competitive examination was held for appointment in the aforementioned posts in May 1982 and the result thereof was published in the year, 1983. The petitioner having been declared selected in the written test, was called for physical test and ultimately was also called for interview which was held on 1.12.1983. 7. According to the petitioner, he secured 427 marks, whereas the last candidate recommended for appointment under the general quota secured 429 marks. 8. The petitioner has asserted that in the year 1979, the State of Bihar issued a Circular dated 10.7.1979 containing a directive therein that in the event the candidates belonging to the reserved quota are selected in general quota, the percentage in the reserve quota would accordingly be reduced and the seats thus falling vacant shall be added to the general quota. The aforementioned circular dated 10.7.1979 is contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application. 9. The petitioner contended that from a perusal of the recommended list as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application, it would appear that Shri Mahesh Kumar, serial no. 1, Lalan Prasad Gupta, serial no. 10, Manoj Kumar Gupta, serial no. 16, Laljit Prasad, serial no. 17, Devashish Prasad, serial no. 19, Kumar Narendra, serial no. 24 and Washi Ahmad Ansari, serial no. 25, applied for appointment of reserved seats for backward classes. 10. According to the petitioner, the candidates at serial nos. 1, 10, 16, 17 and 19 of Annexure 3 having acquired high marks, were selected under the general quota. 11. The petitioner, therefore, contends that in terms of the aforementioned Circular letter as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, 4 seats of backward quota should have been released in favour of the general quota. 12. The petitioner further contends that however. Kumar Narendra (serial no. 24) and Washi Ahmad Ansari (serial no. 25) who were recommended for appointment in the said posts under the reserved quota which were already filled up by the appointment of candidates whose names appear at serial nos. 1, 10, 16, 17 and 19 of the said list. The petitioner, therefore, contends that as his name appears at serial no. 24 he was entitled to be recommended by the respondent no. 3. 13. The petitioner in paragraph 15 of the writ petition stated as follows:- "That similarly, 4 seats were kept reserved for most backward class and serial no. The petitioner, therefore, contends that as his name appears at serial no. 24 he was entitled to be recommended by the respondent no. 3. 13. The petitioner in paragraph 15 of the writ petition stated as follows:- "That similarly, 4 seats were kept reserved for most backward class and serial no. 12, Ravi Shankar Kumar, serial no. 27. Brij Kishore, serial no. 28, Bharat Bhusan Lal, serial no. 29 Nand Kishore Patel and serial no. 30, Balbir Singh, of Annexure 3 had applied for appointment under the most backward class quota. Out of these, however; serial no. 12 namely Ravi Shankar Kumar having secured high marks was selected under the general quota. Therefore according to the Circular of the State Govt. as contained in Annexure 4, since 4 seats were kept reserved for the most backward class and one candidate, namely Ravi Shankar Kumar had already been selected under the' general quota, therefore 1 seat of the most backward class quota should have been released in favour of the general quota, and the respondents authorities should have recommended the names of only 3 candidates for being appointed under the most backward class quota. However, the respondent no. 3 recommended the names of Brij Kishore (S. No. 27), Bharat Bhushan (S. No. 28), Nand Kishore Patel (S. No. 29) and Balbir Singh (S. No. 30) for appointment as Forest Range Officer under the reserved quota for most back ward class merely, in order to fill up the so-called reserved quota, while as already indicated above, one seat under the quota meant for most backward class had already been filled up with the appointment of Ravi Shankar Kumar (S. no. 12). It is, also relevant to point out here that the candidates mentioned at serial nos. 27 to 30 of Annexure 3 had secured lesser marks than the petitioner." 14. The petitioner has given the relevant break up in paragraph 27 of the writ application which is in the following terms:- "That it is, therefore clear that after the release of 5 reserved seats (4 B.C. Quota + 1 M.B.C. quota) in favour of the general quota 25 seats (20+5) will be available to the general candidates, and the petitioner's position in the merit list being 24th, he was bound to be selected for appointment as Forest Range Officer." 15. In a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner contended that one Ravi Shankar, who was at serial no. 12 has not joined the post and another candidate Sri Hemkant Rai who was at serial no. 6 has also not been appointed as he had opted for a difficult post. These statements have not been disputed by the respondents. 16. The petitioner has further contended in the said 'supplementary affidavit that only 18 persons have been issued with the letters of appointment under the general category, whose names are as follows:- 1. Sunil Kumar Sharan. Roll No. 3317 2. Purushottam Singh. ……… 2788 3. Rajesh Kumar. ……... 3105 4. Lallan Prasad Gupta. …....... 2314 5. Binay Bihari Sinha. ……... 5645 6. Vidyapati Singh. …….. 1653 7. Lallanjit Prasad Sinha. …….. 2422 8. Debasis Prasad. …….. 9781 9. Anirudh Kumar Singh. …….. 1120 10. Shrinand Kishore Patel. …… 7681 11. Raj Kumar Raidas …….. 3963 12. Pramod Kumar Sinha. …….. 4477 13. Mahesh Kumar ……. 2555 14. Hemkant Rai. …….. 2101 15. Sunil Kumar Das …….. 9200 16. Rashami Kant Sinha. …….. 4556 17. Bharat Bhushan Pal. …….. 1758 18. Manoj Kumar Gupta. ….... 8904 17. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it was stated that out of serial nos. 1 to 22 of the list, serial nos. 1 and 19 were recommended against posts reserved for backward classes and rest 20 were recommended for appointment against posts in general quota. 18. In the said counter affidavit it was alleged as follows:- "That with regard to statement made in paragraph 14 of the writ application, it is stated that candidates bearing sls. 1, 19, 24 and 25 only have been recommended against posts reserved for backward classes. Sl. No. 10, 16, and 17 were not recommended for backward classes since their claims of reservation under this category was found untenable, either because they did not enclose caste certificates and/or Income affidavit with their application as required, or because they could not produce the requisite certificates/affidavits during the interview or even as allowed during the interview for production within a time limit. But because of their position in the merit list, sls. 10, 16 and 17 were recommended for posts under general quota. As already pointed out against paragraph 11, interpretation herein of the State Government Circular in question, is incorrect. But because of their position in the merit list, sls. 10, 16 and 17 were recommended for posts under general quota. As already pointed out against paragraph 11, interpretation herein of the State Government Circular in question, is incorrect. Obviously, the Commission cannot bestow the benefit of reservation on candidates unless the candidate furnish the requisite certificates as prescribed and the Commission have satisfied themselves in the matter as per Government instruction in this behalf. That with regard to statement made in paragraph 15 of the writ application, it is stated that the candidates bearing sl. no. 27, 28, 29 and 30 only have been recommended for posts reserved for most Backward classes SI. no. 12 was recommended against a post of general quota as he failed to enclose Income affidavit with his application and failed to produce requisite certificates allowed to him during interview. But he was recommended for a post under the general quota because of his position in the merit list." 19. However, in the supplementary counter-affidavit it was stated as follows:- “That it is submitted that after the direction dt. 12.4.85 by the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. no. 1769 of 1984 the Commission consisting of all the Members of the Commission, i.e. Sri A.K.M. Hassan, Chairman, Sri B.K. Dubey, Member, Sri Madhaw Sinha, Member, Dr. B. Thakur, Sri J. Kumar, Miss S. Tirkey, Dr. M. Mohiuddin, Sri Kritbhu Deo and Sri B.N. Rawat reconsidered the matter in the light of the High Court's direction and found that Lallan Pd. Gupta, Ravi Shankar Kumar, M.K. Gupta and Laljit Pd. Sinha had failed to produce the documents in support of their claim for reservation although they were specifically asked to produce the same at the time of personal interview vide Letter no. 020-03/1983 which was also the requirement of the Government as per in struction contained in letter dated 2.2.1982 and the Commission considered the matter in the light of the Hon'ble High, Court's direction and decided that the earlier decision of the Commission should stand." 20. The petitioner, in reply to the aforementioned Counter affidavit, stated as follows:- "That in reply to the said statement made in paragraph no. 12 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that it has been wrongly asserted by the deponent of the counter-affidavit that the serial nos. The petitioner, in reply to the aforementioned Counter affidavit, stated as follows:- "That in reply to the said statement made in paragraph no. 12 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that it has been wrongly asserted by the deponent of the counter-affidavit that the serial nos. 10, 16 and 17 were not recommended against the post reserved for backward classes on account of their failure to enclose the required caste certificate and/or income affidavit alongwith the application form. In fact, serial no. 10 namely Lalan Prasad Gupta, who is by caste a “Bania Reniar” had given his caste Certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Sasaram as also his income affidavit sworn in the court of the Executive Magistrate, Sasaram. He had also filled up the income declaration in the prescribed form. Similarly serial no. 16, namely Manoj Kumar Gupta, who is by caste, a Bangiya Vaisya had enclosed his caste certificate issued by the Civil S.D.O. Ranchi alongwith his application form. He had also 'enclosed the income affidavit sworn by him in the court of Executive Magistrate, Ranchi alongwith his application. He also filled up the income declaration in the prescribed form. Similarly serial no. 17 namely, Laljee Pd. Sinha, who is by caste a Kurmi, enclosed his caste certificate alongwith his application form granted by the civil S.D.O. Bihar Sarif, Nalanda. He also furnished the income affidavit sworn by him in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Nalanda. And he also filled up the income declaration in the prescribed form. The veracity or otherwise of the statements made by the deponent can be ascertained if the original application forms are called for from the Commission office by this Hon'ble Court. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the serial nos. 10, 16 and 17 were not recommended against the posts reserved for backward classes. Further more, if these candidates would not have enclosed the requisite certificates then there would have been no occasion for the authorities concerned to publish the result and to mention in the said result that the candidates belonged to the backward classes. Similarly, the merit list prepared by the Commission (Annexure 2) indicates that these candidates (serial nos. 10, 16 and 17 of the recommendation list) were treated as candidates belonging to the backward quota. Similarly, the merit list prepared by the Commission (Annexure 2) indicates that these candidates (serial nos. 10, 16 and 17 of the recommendation list) were treated as candidates belonging to the backward quota. That in reply to the statements made in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that it has wrongly been ascertained that serial no. 12 was recommended against a post of general quota as he failed to endorse income affidavit with his application. In fact, serial no. 12, namely Rabishankar Kumar, who is by caste a Kanoo, had not only supplied the requisite certificate during interview but had also enclosed the income affidavit sworn by him in the court of Executive Magistrate, "Patna. He was therefore, not recommended against a post of general quota but against a post reserved for most backward candidate." 21. Mr. S.P. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 3 committed an illegality in not recommending the name of petitioner, who was at serial no. 24 only because some persons who filed their applications for appointment being belonging to backward classes or most backward classes, having secured higher marks then the petitioner and ware recommended against the general quota. 22. The learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of counter affidavit as reproduced hereinbefore, it would be evident that the respondent no. 3 considered the names of Lalan Prasad Gupta, Ravi Shankar Kumar, Manoj Kumar Gupta and Laljit Prasad Sinha against the general quota only because they did not allegedly annex caste certificates and/or income certificate granted by a District Magistrate. 23. The learned counsel submitted that it is now a settled law that even if a caste certificate is produced at the time of interview or thereafter i.e. before the names are recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission (Bihar), the concerned persons should be selected as against the posts reserved for aforementioned category of classes mentioned ill the advertisement and consequently such posts which were filled up by the persons belonging to the reserved quota, should have been released in favour of the general quota. 24. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this court directed the respondent no. 3, to produce the records relating to the aforementioned four persons, namely, Lalan Prasad Gupta, Ravi Shanker Kumar, Manoj Kumar Gupta and Laljit Prasad Sinha. 25. 24. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this court directed the respondent no. 3, to produce the records relating to the aforementioned four persons, namely, Lalan Prasad Gupta, Ravi Shanker Kumar, Manoj Kumar Gupta and Laljit Prasad Sinha. 25. Upon a perusal of the records, it transpired that it was necessary to hear the parties further and as such the hearing of the case was again taken up from 20.11.1989. 26. After hearing the counsel for the parties, it occurred to us that the statements made by the Bihar Public Service Commission in its counter affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit, are correct and even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted in its entirety, still he cannot be granted any relief in this application inasmuch as the case of the Bihar Public Service Commission in relation to Shri Laljit Prasad Sinha was correct. 27. However, the petitioner, at that stage, submitted that so far as Laljit Prasad Sinha bearing roll no. 2422 is concerned, he bad already filed caste certificate although, from the records filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission it would appear that he did not file the said caste Certificate. 28. The petitioner, in this connection, drew our attention to Annexure-2 to the writ application for the purpose of showing that the said Laljit Prasad Sinha, whose name appears in serial no. 18 of Annexure-2 has been shown as belonging to backward class. 29. From the original application filed before the respondent no. 3 by the aforementioned Laljit Prasad Sinha, it appeared that caste certificate was wanting and he was asked to submit the same by 6.12.1983. However, from the records, as were produced before us no such caste certificate could be found out. 30. In view of the aforementioned inconsistencies occurring in the records, namely, the original records produced before us and the statements made by the respondent no. 3, in its counter affidavit, on the one hand, and the entry against the name of the aforementioned Laljit Prasad Sinha in Annexure-3 on the other, the petitioner filed an application on 12.12.1989 to the effect that the respondent no. 3 be directed to produce the entire records including merits list from the office of the Advocate General and verify as to whether Laljit Prasad Sinha bearing roll no. 2422 had actually filed his caste certificate or not. 31. 3 be directed to produce the entire records including merits list from the office of the Advocate General and verify as to whether Laljit Prasad Sinha bearing roll no. 2422 had actually filed his caste certificate or not. 31. By an order dated 12.12.1989, this Court directed the respondent to obtain instructions in the matter and if necessary to file a further affidavit. 32. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, further under took on that date to produce the relevant document on the next date fixed. 33. Upon Ii prayer made on behalf of the respondent no.3 for an adjournment in order to enable it to verify the fact stated in the said application, the original records of the commission were returned to the counsel for the respondents and as prayed for by the said respondent, the case was adjourned to 1.2.l990. 34. On 1.2.1990, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the respondent no. 3 wherein it was admitted that a case certificate dated 6.12.1983 had been traced out which was in fact filed by the said Laljit Prasad Sinha. 35. It has further been admitted that the caste certificate was issued to Laljit Prasad Sinha, by the Sub-divisional Officer, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda and so his name, was considered for appointment in the general category and he was appointed accordingly. 36. In view of the facts stated hereinbefore, it is absolutely clear that the aforementioned Laljit Prasad Sinha filed a caste certificate. 37. It was not in dispute that so far as the other three persons are concerned, namely, Lalan Prasad Gupta, Ravi Shankar Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta, they also flied their respective caste certificates. 38. The short question, therefore, which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether a caste certificate was required to be filed by the candidates having been granted by a Magistrate or not. 39. From a perusal of the advertisement as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, it appears that the persons who come within the purview of the, reserved category, were required to file the caste certificate and income certificate granted by a competent magistrate. 40. It is, therefore, clear that in terms of the aforementioned advertisement, a caste certificate and income certificate were not necessary to be granted by the District Magistrate and the Sub-divisional Officer, was therefore competent to grant such certificates. 41. 40. It is, therefore, clear that in terms of the aforementioned advertisement, a caste certificate and income certificate were not necessary to be granted by the District Magistrate and the Sub-divisional Officer, was therefore competent to grant such certificates. 41. From the facts as stated hereinbefore it is, thus evident that as the candidates of serial no. 2 and 20 of the merits list did not join, serial nos. 1 and 19 who were considered in the general quota belonging to backward class and serial nos. 16 and 17 also, according t6 the respondents themselves, filed caste certificates, although they were also considered for appointment in the general quota. 42. The directive of the State Government with regard to the reservation policy contained in the Circular letter dated 10th July 1979 being Annexure-4 to the writ application, reads as follows:- fdUrq ;fn vuq- tkfr@vuq- tutkfr;ksa@fiNM+k oxZ ds fy, tks izfr’kr fu/kkZfjr gS vkSj ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij mez izfr’kr ds de la[;k esa vkjf{kr tkfr;ksa ds mEehnokj ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij vkrs gSa rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mudh la[;k vkjf{kr dksVk ls mruh de gks tk;sxhA 43. Clause 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of India empowers the States to make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes. 44. In the matter of appointment, Clause 4 of Article 16 of the Constitution of India enables the State to make any provision for the reservation of appointment or posts in favour of any backward classes of citizens which in t4e opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the service under the State. 45. The policy of reservation made by the State for providing job opportunities to any backward class of citizens is only to give adequate representation to them in the services under the State. 46. As noticed hereinbefore, in terms of the advertisement dated 4.11.1987 as contained in Annexure-l to the writ application, the State of Bihar reserved different number of seats for persons belonging to different categories in the manner as mentioned hereinbefore and thus, making 50 percent reservation of the total vacancies. 47. 46. As noticed hereinbefore, in terms of the advertisement dated 4.11.1987 as contained in Annexure-l to the writ application, the State of Bihar reserved different number of seats for persons belonging to different categories in the manner as mentioned hereinbefore and thus, making 50 percent reservation of the total vacancies. 47. As in terms of clause 4 of Article 16 of the Constitution, the State is merely to see that the persons belonging to a backward class is adequately represented in the services under the State, a person belonging to the said caste can only be considered against the reserved posts for that caste generally. However, if a person qualifies himself along with other general candidates, the policy of the State as reflected in its police decision contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application to the effect that in the event of the post falling vacant by reason of appointment of a person belonging to a reserved class against the general category, the seats falling vacant, therefore shall be released in favour of the candidates of general category. 48. The said circular dated 10.7.1979 (Annexure-4) conforms to the provisions of clause 4 of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and thus the same must be held to be valid in law. 49. In fact, the respondents also in their counter affidavit, as indicated hereinbefore, categorically stated that the policy decision of the State of Bihar as contained in the aforementioned Circular letter dated 10.7.1979 (Annexure-4) is to be adhered to. 50. If this be the position, it was incumbent upon the respondent no. 3 to consider that in view of the fact that Lalan Prasad Gupta, Ravi Shankar Kumar, Manoj Kumar Gupta and Laljit Prasad Sinha have filed their caste Certificate and/or income certificates ranted by a competent magistrate, although, qualified in the general category the post which fall vacant because of their appointment in the general category, although they belonged to the backward classes, should have been released to the general category. 51. Taking thus, the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that there being 24 vacant posts in the general category, the plaintiff's name should have been recommended although originally he was at serial no. 26. 52. 51. Taking thus, the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that there being 24 vacant posts in the general category, the plaintiff's name should have been recommended although originally he was at serial no. 26. 52. Further, as bas been noticed hereinbefore, as the caste certificates requeired to be produced could be granted by any competent authority and income certificates could be granted by a competent magistrate, there cannot be any doubt that the names of the aforementioned four persons, namely, Lalan Prasad Gupta, Ravi Shankar Kumar, Manoj Kumar Gupta and Laljit Prasad Sinha ought to have been considered against the posts reserved for backward classes and in view of the fact, even if, they have been appointed in the general category, the aforementioned four posts should have been released in favour of the general category. 53. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that any competent magistrate could have granted the certificate relating to the income of the concerned candidates and similarly there was no restriction with regard to the grant of caste certificate by any competent authority. 54. In these circumstances, rejection of the caste certificate of Lalan Prasad Sinha only on the ground that the same was granted by Sub-divisional Officer, was wholly irrelevant and without jurisdiction. 55. Before parting with the case, it may be mentioned that it does not speak high of the Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, to contend that a caste certificate by candidate was misplaced and as such, he was considered in the general category, as stated in the counter affidavit. 56. The Bihar Public Service Commission, which is a constitutional body in expected not only to Act, fairly but also strictly in accordance with law. As the careers of the citizens of India are involved, it is not expected of the respondent-Commission that is would commit an Act, of negligence result in a misstatement of facts thereof before this court. 57. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the respond ant no. 3 is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of this judgment and forward its recommendation’s to the State of Bihar who is directed to Act, in accordance with law. 58. 57. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the respond ant no. 3 is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of this judgment and forward its recommendation’s to the State of Bihar who is directed to Act, in accordance with law. 58. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been fighting a battle for obtaining the job for a long time, the respondents are hereby directed to complete the entire process as early as possible as and in any case not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 59. It is further observed that the State should consider the case of the petitioner to the effect, if he can be compensated suitably for the acts of negligence and/or the guilt of the respondent no. 3 in resorting to suppresio veri and suggestio falsi. However, this Court is not making and cannot make any such direction in this regard. 60. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this application from the respondents which is assessed to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand). Application allowed.